How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?

Israel: An Archaeological Journey

© 2009 Biblical Archaeology Society 26

How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?

By Mark Chancey and Eric M. Meyers

Sepphoris is a bare 4 miles from Jesus’ hometown, Nazareth. So it is not surprising that

the ancient city has become central to the study of the historical Jesus, especially because it has

been very extensively excavated, while Nazareth has yielded far fewer archaeological remains.

Everyone agrees that to understand Galilee in Jesus’ time, it is necessary to understand

Sepphoris, but that is where agreement largely ends. The issue is simply stated: What kind of city

was Sepphoris when Jesus was growing up in nearby Nazareth and when he was preaching in

the surrounding countryside in such places as Capernaum and Bethsaida? Was Sepphoris a

Jewish city? Did it have a mixed population? Was it a Hellenistic Roman city?

Some scholars characterize ancient Sepphoris as essentially non-Jewish—as, in the

words of one scholar, a “burgeoning Greco-Roman metropolis” with a population of “Jews, Arabs,

Greeks, and Romans,”1

or as an “important Roman cultural and administrative center” with “all

the features of a Hellenistic city.”2

Coming from this context, certain scholars argue, Jesus would

have had more in common with Greco-Roman philosophers than with rabbis or with classical

Hebrew prophetic tradition.

After more than 15 years of excavating at Sepphoris, we believe that this view seriously

mischaracterizes what the city was like in Jesus’ time. The archaeological evidence indicates that

Sepphoris was largely Jewish, as was Galilee in general, albeit with some Hellenistic

characteristics. The situation in Jesus’ day is best understood, however, in the context of the

history of Sepphoris from earliest times until the Byzantine period, hundreds of years after Jesus.

So we shall begin at the beginning.



Courtesy Duby Tal and Moni Haramati, AlbatrossRising 400 feet above the rolling terrain of central Galilee, the acropolis at Sepphoris iscrowned by a late box-shaped citadel (far right) that overlooks excavations in the city’sfirst-century C.E. residential area. Located a mere 4 miles north of Nazareth, where Jesusgrew up, Sepphoris was a thriving urban center during his lifetime and in the centuriesthat followed, and many scholars have wondered if Jesus was influenced by the culturaland intellectual trends that prevailed in the nearby city.

Some scholars think Sepphoris was a thoroughly Hellenistic city and try to place theteachings of Jesus in the context of Greco-Roman philosophical traditions. But authorsMark Chancey and Eric Meyers contend that extensive excavation at Sepphoris has onlyconfirmed the opposite view: that first-century Sepphoris was a town with a strong Jewishcultural identity.

Map showing location of Sepphoris.



The Hebrew name for Sepphoris is Zippori. The earliest major rabbinic text, the Mishnah,

which dates to about 200 C.E., tells us that Zippori was one of the cities fortified by Joshua when

the tribes of Israel first settled in the promised land.3

Despite many seasons of excavation, it is

still not clear whether this tradition is accurate and, if so, whether the text refers to Sepphoris or

another site, Tel ‘Ein Zippori, a few miles north of Sepphoris in the Nazareth basin.4

Two of the

earliest artifacts found at Sepphoris date, not from the time of Joshua, but from the fifth to fourth

century B.C.E., after the Jews were permitted by the Persian ruler Cyrus the Great to return from

the Babylonian Exile. The first item is a black-ware drinking goblet, or rhyton, the lower portion, or

protome, of which resembles the face of a lion, the body of a horse and the outspread wings of a

bird.5

The second artifact is a fragment from a marble or calcite vase originally inscribed in four

languages. The text included the name Artaxerxes in the cuneiform signs of the Persian, Elamite

and Old Babylonian languages; there was also a version of the text in Egyptian hieroglyphics.6

Since the Persians are known to have established garrisons at various points along the road

system in Syria-Palestine, these fine objects suggest the presence of one such garrison near

Sepphoris. They also underscore the city’s strategic location along the major trans-Galilee

highway, which linked the area of Tiberias and the Sea of Galilee with the Mediterranean coast at

Akko.

The archaeological evidence reviewed by the authors derives from years of excavationcarried out by several teams. The site plan identifies these teams and indicates where theyhave conducted their digs at Sepphoris. The residential area is at far left on the plan.Further right, toward the center of the plan, is a 4,000-seat theater. A Roman villa,sumptuously decorated with mosaics, is located just below the theater, near the summit ofthe city, while at far right, in the lower city, is the eastern market area, neatly bisected bythe main north-south street, or cardo. A recently identified synagogue is located at the topof the plan.



From the Hellenistic period, we found the remains of a fort constructed in about 200 to

100 B.C.E., when the city was part of the Seleucida

Empire. This fort, on the western summit of

the site, was probably built by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus III or his successor, Antiochus IV.

The Jews successfully rebelled against Antiochus IV in 167 B.C.E., a victory that is still recalled at

the Jewish festival of Hanukkah. The victory of Judah Maccabee and his brothers eventually led

to the installation of the Hasmonean dynasty, which ruled the first independent Jewish state since

Judah fell to the Babylonians in 586 B.C.E.b

The original Seleucid fort was probably taken over

by the Hasmoneans in about 100 B.C.E.

The authors find further evidence ofSepphoris’s deep Jewish culture in thisostracon (second century B.C.E.). Theinscription is a Hebrew transliterationof a Greek word, probably some formof the word epimeletes, which is Greekfor “manager” or “overseer.” Scholarsspeculate that it may refer to a Jewishofficeholder. If so, this points to a well-developed Jewish community atSepphoris at least as early as theHasmonean period (141–37 B.C.E.).

Courtesy Sepphoris Regional Project

Several rather elegant stepped pools, or Jewish ritual baths (mikva’ot), are associated

with this early Hasmonean phase. Although it was very surprising to find mikva’ot so early, an

ostracon dated to this same period (late second century B.C.E.) indicates that Jews did indeed

live at Sepphoris in the early Hasmonean period. The ostracon is inscribed in square Hebrew

script.7

The first-century C.E. Jewish historian Josephus tells us in his history of the Jews that the

governor of Cyprus attempted to conquer Sepphoris and take it from the Hasmonean king

Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 B.C.E.), thereby confirming that it was under Hasmonean rule.8

Shortly after the Roman general Pompey conquered Syria-Palestine in 63 B.C.E., the

Romans divided Jewish Palestine into five districts and established Jewish councils to administer

local affairs in these districts. Sepphoris was selected as the only Galilean town to be assigned a

Jewish council.9

In 37 B.C.E. the Hasmoneans were replaced by Herod the Great, although not without a

struggle. Indeed, Sepphoris was a stronghold of the last Hasmonean king, Antigonus (c. 39–38

B.C.E.). Antigonus was supported by the Parthians (Persians), who had been instrumental in his

appointment.



Herod captured the city, however, and made it his base of operations in the north.10

He

could well have used the old Seleucid fort as a kind of arsenal.

When Herod died in 4 B.C.E., a Galilean named Judas son of Ezekias led a rebellion directed at

Sepphoris and its “royal” palace, or fort and arsenal.11

The Roman legate of Syria, Varus,

responded by burning the city to the ground and selling its rebellious inhabitants into slavery.12

The city seems to have recovered quickly, however. Perhaps Josephus exaggerated

Varus’s retaliatory attack. Already during the reign of Herod’s son Herod Antipas (who fell heir to

Galilee), the city expanded and its acropolis was rebuilt. Josephus describes this city as the

“ornament of all Galilee.” “Ornament” refers to more than beauty, however; the Greek word for

ornament, proschema, also has a military connotation—fortification or impregnable city.13

Sepphoris was the capital of Galilee until about 20 C.E., when Herod Antipas constructed a new

city on the Sea of Galilee, Tiberias, and shifted his capital there.

In 61 C.E., when the Roman emperor Nero turned Tiberias over to Herod Agrippa II,

another descendant of Herod the Great, Sepphoris once again became the administrative center

of Galilee.14

Both the royal bank and the official archives were moved there.15

In 66 C.E. the First Jewish Revolt against Rome began. It effectively ended in 70 C.E.

with the burning of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple. Sometimes called the Great

Revolt, this uprising often conjures up visions of staunch resistance, symbolized by the Zealots’

last stand at Masada or by the fierce defenders of Jerusalem during the Roman siege of the city

in the spring and summer of 70 C.E. In truth, however, there was a very strong peace movement

within the Jewish ranks, which included such luminaries as Yochanan ben Zakkai and, eventually,

Josephus. As early as the time of Herod the Great, Hillel the Elder articulated a position of

nonviolence and espoused a policy of working within the administrative structure of Roman rule.

Sepphoris, like Josephus, seems to have started out supporting the revolt but later

thought better of it. (Unfortunately, our only source for these events is Josephus himself, and his

reports are sometimes inconsistent.) Josephus served as commander of the Jewish force in the

Galilee from 66 to 67 C.E. He was taken captive by the Romans at Jotapata, where he

surrendered after the last of his companions committed suicide. After his capture, Josephus

apparently experienced a profound change in his attitude toward Rome.

Similarly, Sepphoris residents were at first eager for hostilities against Rome.16

Josephus

himself was involved in fortifying Sepphoris. What may be the remains of a fortification wall from

this period have recently been discovered by an archaeological expedition led by Zeev Weiss of

Hebrew University. Sepphoris was “the strongest city in Galilee” according to Josephus.17

Nevertheless, at some point the city fathers appear to have changed their minds. Rather

than risk destruction, the city chose the safer option—solidarity with the Romans. Early in the

conflict, Sepphoris admitted a garrison of Roman soldiers,18

which was later joined by another

contingent from the Roman general and future emperor Vespasian.19



Josephus at first viewed the refusal of the city’s inhabitants to participate in the revolt as

a betrayal of their fellows.20

But his own attitude changed after Sepphoris eagerly welcomed

Vespasian and his army in peace.

Evidence that Sepphoris adopted a pro-Roman, or “peace,” position comes from city

coins minted there during the revolt. Some of these coins are inscribed “Under Vespasian,

Eirenopolis [meaning “City of Peace”]—Neronias [in honor of Nero]—Sepphoris.” The old fort, first

used by the Seleucids and later by the Hasmoneans, and ultimately by Herod the Great, may

have been filled in shortly before 68 C.E. and made into a great open plaza as a sign of

Sepphoris’s good will and change of heart toward the Romans.

We may now stop to consider the ethnic character of the city. Since we have been

discussing the ancient literature, we may begin with Josephus. Aside from his report of the

Roman soldiers who were garrisoned in Sepphoris during the revolt, Josephus nowhere refers to

any gentile inhabitants of the city. Nor does he refer to any pagan temples or other Hellenistic

institutions, such as a gymnasium, in the city. Indeed, nothing in his accounts suggests that

Sepphoris in the first century C.E. was anything but a Jewish city. Later rabbinic traditions

corroborate this image, preserving memories of the participation of priests from Sepphoris in the

Temple cult in Jerusalem.21

Whether Jewish or gentile, however,

it is clear that the city was no rural

backwater. It was, at least architecturally, a

sophisticated city with paved and

colonnaded streets; water installations,

possibly including a bathhouse on the

eastern plateau and some sort of public

water works nearer the acropolis; multistory

buildings; and major public structures,

including a large columned building also on

the eastern plateau. A honeycomb of

cisterns was cut into the bedrock underlying

the city. The proximity of Sepphoris to

Nazareth indeed undermines the notion that

Jesus was unfamiliar with sophisticated

urban culture; the question is whether that

culture was predominantly Jewish or gentile.

Garo NalbandianThe colonnaded cardo, the main north-south street of Sepphoris.



A number of archaeological considerations lead us to the same impression we get from

Josephus—that Sepphoris was a Jewish city. This archaeological evidence will become even

more persuasive when we contrast it with the materials from later periods.

The first bit of evidence comes from the faunal remains. Thousands upon thousands of

fragments of animal bones have been recovered from the western summit of the site. These have

been studied by Billy Grantham, associate professor of anthropology at Troy State University.22

In

the entire lot, there were so few pig bones from the Roman era that Grantham concluded that

pork was a negligible component of the Sepphoreans’ diet. This is especially significant because

in the Byzantine era the percentage of pig bones rises to nearly 30 percent in Christian areas of

the city. Clearly, the residents of the western summit avoided pig consumption, in keeping with

Jewish dietary laws.

The second ethnic marker is already familiar to BAR readers.c

In the residential area of

the city, 114 fragments of stone vessels were recovered. Stone vessels are not subject to ritual

impurity. When pottery vessels became ritually unclean they were destroyed. Metal and glass

vessels could be repurified. But stone vessels did not become impure. Hence, large stone

vessels were used to store pure water for ritual hand washing. (The Gospel of John 2:6 refers to

“six stone jars [that] were standing for the Jewish rites of purification.”) Bathhouse benches were

made of stone for the same reason.23

Stone vessels have—and have not—been encountered in so many excavations that their

presence may be used as an ethnic marker, as Yitzhak Magen, who has studied them

extensively, has observed. The presence of more than a hundred stone vessel fragments in the

residential area of Sepphoris is a strong indication that the inhabitants were Jewish.

The next ethnic marker is somewhat more controversial. There is no question that the

presence of Jewish ritual baths, mikva’ot, indicates the presence of Jews. In our view, the many

water pools found in the residential areas of Sepphoris from the late Hellenistic and Roman

periods should be identified as mikva’ot. This has been challenged by Hanan Eshel, an Israeli

scholar. The arguments on either side are aired elsewhere in this issue. Readers can decide for

themselves the merits of the arguments, although in our view the outcome is clear. But even

Eshel concedes that some of these pools may be mikva’ot. And there can be no doubt that where

there are mikva’ot there are Jews.

Thus the lack of pig bones, the abundance of stone vessels and the presence, at least in

our view, of many mikva’ot all support our conclusion that during Jesus’ time Sepphoris was

home to a significant Jewish community. This is entirely consistent with Josephus. This

conclusion is also supported by the Hellenistic period Hebrew ostracon referred to earlier and by

several late Roman period lamp fragments with menorahs (seven-branched candelabra) depicted

on their central discus. In addition, numerous mosaic fragments with Hebrew and Aramaic letters

have been recovered from the western summit of Sepphoris. All together, the evidence points to



a Jewish population in the Hellenistic-Roman period that maintained at least some of the most

important religious laws of the Bible and the Mishnah.

The two types of coins minted by Sepphoris during the Great Revolt also suggest the city

was primarily Jewish. Neither contains any image of the Roman emperor or pagan deities,

although these images were common on coins of this period issued by cities on the Palestinian

coast as well as by cities of the Decapolis (a group of ten cities mostly east of Galilee). On one of

the Sepphoris coins is a double cornucopia (horn of plenty) with a staff in the middle. These were

common symbols on first-century Jewish coins (the cornucopia, however, was by far the more

common of the two). The other coin minted at Sepphoris during the revolt contains only an

inscription, in Greek, with no image whatsoever.

In contrast to the abundant evidence of a Jewish presence in the city, evidence of a

pagan presence in the first century C.E. is practically nonexistent. After more than 15 years of

extensive excavations, no remains of a temple have been discovered, no cultic objects, no

inscriptions referring to the worship of pagan deities. The typical architectural features of a

Hellenistic city are also missing—we have discovered no gymnasium, no hippodrome (chariot-

racing course), no amphitheater, no odeum (small, sometimes roofed theater), no nymphaeum

(elaborately decorated fountain), no shrines and no statues.

We do not mean to suggest that Sepphoris was totally removed from the cultural trends

of larger Roman society but only to demonstrate that the first-century city’s Jewish character had

by no means been submerged in a sea of Hellenism. While Sepphoris’s economic, social and

political influence in Galilee is clear; there is no reason to characterize the city as a center of

Hellenism or as a typical Greco-Roman city in the first century.

Not until the second and third centuries C.E. do we find evidence of a non-Jewish

presence at Sepphoris. But before examining this material, we must consider the very impressive

theater that was first excavated at Sepphoris 70 years ago by Leroy Waterman of the University

of Michigan. Renewed excavation by James F. Strange (University of South Florida) in 1983; by

Eric Meyers (Duke University), Ehud Netzer (Hebrew University) and Carol Meyers (Duke

University) in 1985; and by Ehud Netzer and Zeev Weiss (Hebrew University) in 1991 has

unfortunately not entirely settled the question of the date of the theater. In our view, it was

constructed some time near the end of the first century C.E., after the Great Revolt, or, more

likely, early in the second century C.E. Several scholars have attempted to date the theater to a

period before the Great Revolt. Some have even sought to associate the theater with Jesus. This

dispute has already been aired in these pages.d

Suffice it to say that few scholars have come

forth in support of such an early dating.

As the city grew and expanded during the second century C.E., a new aqueduct system

was constructed. This system served most of the needs of the city, as well as two public

bathhouses in the lower city. An agora (marketplace) was probably also added.24

Coins bearing



the bust of the emperor Trajan (98–117 C.E.) were minted by the city. Coins minted under

Antoninus Pius (138–161 C.E.) not only bear the bust of the emperor but also display images of

pagan deities—the Capitoline triad and Tyche, who is usually regarded as a city goddess.

The Antoninus Pius coins also reveal a new name for the city: Diocaesarea. This name,

which honors both Zeus (in Latin, Dio) and the emperor, appears on all subsequent coins issued

by the city and becomes the name by which the city is known in pagan and Christian literature.

While a first-century C.E. coin minted atSepphoris shows evidence of respect forJewish sensibilities (see photograph),the coin shown here, minted atSepphoris during the reign of AntoninusPius (138–161 C.E.), has all thecharacteristics of a pagan design. Notonly does it bear the emperor’s image,but the goddess Tyche is also depictedstanding in a temple on the reverse sideof the coin. Moreover, this later coinreveals a new Roman name forSepphoris—Diocaesarea. By the mid-second century C.E., such signs ofGreco-Roman influence were on the risein Sepphoris. But as Chancey andMeyers point out, scholars should becareful about using this late evidence toprove anything about the city in the timeof Jesus.

Israel Museum

Other post-first-century artifacts reflect growing Hellenistic and pagan influence. Second-

and third-century lamps bear Hellenistic motifs, such as a medusa (from Greek mythology, a

witch-like woman with snakes for hair). Other Sepphoris lamps from the period depict explicit

erotic poses. A mid-second-century C.E. lead weight contains a Greek inscription identifying two

of the city’s market officials (agoranomoi), one with a Semitic name (Simon) and one with a Latin

name (Justus).25

One of the most famous and most frequently visited discoveries at Sepphoris is a

magnificent villa, situated on the acropolis near the theater, which dates to the early third century

C.E. The floor is decorated with a beautifully preserved mosaic that contains an enigmatic portrait

of an unknown woman often called the “Mona Lisa of the Galilee.” More important for our

purposes, however, are the panels in the center of the mosaic. Accompanied by explanatory

Greek inscriptions, they depict a drinking contest between Dionysus, the god of wine, and

Heracles, here depicted as a participant in a Greek-style symposium. Not surprisingly, Dionysus

wins the contest. One panel shows Heracles drunk, and another features a procession in his

honor.26



Duby Tal & Moni Haramati, AlbatrossA 4,000-seat theater was first excavated at Sepphoris in 1931 and has been the subject ofconsiderable academic debate ever since. Some scholars believe that Jesus himself mayhave sat on the theater’s semicircular limestone benches. But Chancey and Meyers doubtthat the theater was constructed before the end of the first century C.E. If Jesus did walkthe streets of Sepphoris, he would have encountered a bustling city, but one that lackedmany of the architectural hallmarks of a Hellenistic urban center.



Eric Meyers/courtesy of the Joint Sepphoris ProjectA magnificent villa, just south of the theater, offers striking evidence of the foreign culturalinfluences that left their mark on Sepphoris in the second, third and fourth centuries C.E.Contributing to the mix of cultures were the Roman troops headquartered just south of thecity and the Jews who migrated to Galilee from southern Palestine during and after theBar-Kokhba Revolt (132–135 C.E.). More hellenized than their Galilean counterparts, thesesouthern Jews brought with them a greater familiarity with the language and customs ofGreco-Roman civilization.

Dating to the third century C.E., the villa had a colorful mosaic floor in its triclinium, thebanquet area/reception hall. Among its many well-preserved images, the mosaic featuresan exquisite portrait of a beautiful, but unknown, woman, often called the “Mona Lisa ofthe Galilee” (see photograph). The central portion of the mosaic contains 15 panels thatdepict episodes connected with Dionysus, the god of wine (see photographs).

Reconstruction drawingof the villa of themosaics. The tricliniumis in the center. Seephotograph above.

Courtesy Zeev Weiss



Duby Tal and Moni Haramati, AlbatrossThe “Mona Lisa of the Galilee.” This exquisite mosaic of a beautiful, but unknown, womanwas found in the triclinium of the villa.



Eric Meyers/courtesy of the Joint Sepphoris ProjectOne of the mosaic panels from the triclinium of the villa, depicting a drinking contestbetween Dionysus and the hero Heracles. A drunken Heracles, his club set aside, requiresthe assistance of two followers of Dionysus, a maenad and a satyr. Above the head of thesatyr is the Greek word methe (drunkenness).

Courtesy Joint Sepphoris ProjectOne of the mosaic panels from the triclinium of the villa, showing Dionysus in a chariot,returning with his musical entourage from a triumphant trip to India.



But that is not all. Two tiny bronze figures—one depicting either Pan or a satyr, the other

depicting Prometheus—were found in a cistern of a house on the western acropolis, and they,

too, date to the second or third century C.E. A bronze bowl, a small bronze incense altar and a

small bronze bull found together in a cistern and probably dating to the fourth century C.E. are

most likely associated with the worship of Serapis.27

Sign of a growing pagan presence inSepphoris, this bronze figurine dates tothe second to third century C.E.Archaeologists uncovered it in a cisternbeneath a house in the city’s residentialsection. This bronze representation of aseated musician is probably a satyr. InGreek and Roman mythology, satyrswere associated with the cult ofDionysus and often, by extension, withconviviality and licentious behavior.

Courtesy Joint Sepphoris Project

Courtesy Joint Sepphoris Project

Sign of a growing pagan presence inSepphoris, this bronze figurine dates tothe second to third century C.E.Archaeologists uncovered it in a cisternbeneath a house in the city’s residentialsection. This figure shows Prometheus,who, in Greek mythology, incurred thewrath of Zeus by stealing fire fromheaven and offering it as a gift tohumans. For his theft, Prometheussuffered the punishment depicted here:Chained to a rock, he found himself atthe mercy of a bird that perpetually toreaway at his liver.



After the Great Revolt (66–70 C.E.), and especially after the Second Jewish Revolt (132–

135 C.E.; sometimes called the Bar-Kokhba Revolt), Jews from southern Palestine migrated

north to Galilee, bringing with them the Hellenistic culture that had previously been more

pronounced at Jerusalem and its environs than in Galilee. The hellenization of Galilee was also

significantly increased by the arrival of Roman troops, who, in 120 C.E., were for the first time

permanently stationed there. The VI Ferrata Legion and their support personnel were

headquartered at Legio, only a few miles south of Sepphoris. But all this occurred well after the

time of Jesus.

By the fourth century C.E., Greek inscriptions are common at Sepphoris. The name of the

city had already been changed to Diocaesarea, perhaps to placate the nearby Romans, and the

city administration may well have been composed of a mixture of gentiles (pagans as well as

Christians) and Jews.

While the growing visibility of Greco-Roman culture at Sepphoris is unmistakable,

evidence of pagan worship is still scant. Despite images of temples on second- and third-century

C.E. city coins, no actual temple has yet been discovered at Sepphoris. And while the figurines

and other cultic objects mentioned above provide glimpses of pagan practices, they are few in

number and late in date.

Moreover, the evidence for Judaism in Sepphoris only grows after the first century C.E.

The most obvious evidence is the prominence of Sepphoris in rabbinic sources. Rabbi Judah ha-

Nasi, or Judah the Prince, apparently supervised the codification of Jewish law in the Mishnah at

Sepphoris. Mikva’ot dating as late as the fourth century C.E. are common. Few pig bones are

found before the Byzantine period (fourth century C.E.). Two fourth-century C.E. lamps from

Sepphoris depict a menorah; another shows an aedicula resembling a Torah shrine.28

The fourth-

century bishop Epiphanius records an application by a Christian to build churches in Sepphoris;

Emperor Constantine’s reply refers to “the cities and villages of the Jews … where there is not

among them a pagan or a Samaritan or a Christian.” It then mentions four cities in which “no

gentile can be found among them”: Nazareth, Capernaum, Tiberias—and Diocaesarea, that is,

Sepphoris.29

It is against this background that we must consider Sepphoris as it may be relevant to the

search for the historical Jesus.

Unfortunately, some scholars have misperceived Sepphoris as a center of Greco-Roman

culture in the time of Jesus on the basis of finds from the centuries after Jesus. Sepphoris was

indeed a thriving and growing city in the early first century C.E., but the evidence for Hellenistic

culture is limited. As for the city’s population, the overwhelming majority were Jews. Gentiles, if

they were present at all, were a small and uninfluential minority.



Some scholars have gone so far as to suggest that the cultural trends in Galilee in Jesus’

time differed little from those elsewhere in the Roman Empire. On this basis, they view Jesus as a

kind of sage influenced by popular—that is, less scholarly—versions of Greek and Roman

philosophy. Popular philosophers could be found throughout the urban centers of the Roman

Empire, standing on street corners haranguing passersby with their views, so why not in

Sepphoris? So the argument runs. These scholars, incorrectly in our view, reject the notion that

Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet proclaiming the end of the present age and the arrival of a new

age where God’s rule would be accomplished on earth—the traditional Jewish understanding of

the “kingdom of God” that he preached.

John Dominic Crossan, for example, has painted a picture of Jesus espousing an eastern

Mediterranean version of a Greek philosophy known as Cynicism. According to scholars like

Crossan, Jesus the peasant Cynic traveled throughout Galilee calling for a countercultural

rejection of social norms. His followers were to abandon their possessions, “storing up treasures

in heaven” instead (Matthew 6:19).

If the apocalyptic understanding of this kingdom is rejected, then what did Jesus mean by

the “kingdom of God”? According to Crossan, Jesus, advocating Cynic-like values, wanted to

bring about, not an apocalyptic kingdom, but a kingdom in which social barriers were eliminated

and society’s outcasts and rejects were elevated.

In fact, however, there is no evidence for the presence of philosophic teachers, Cynic or

otherwise, in first-century C.E. Galilee. While the influence of Hellenistic culture was growing in

Galilee, it did not reach its apex until the following centuries. Sepphoris was a primarily Jewish

city, and nothing suggests that Greco-Roman philosophers would have been found there.

In a book entitled Jesus and the Forgotten City, Richard Batey even tries to make a case

that Sepphoris was a booming Hellenistic city early in the first century C.E. He posits a Sepphoris

with many gentiles practicing pagan rituals, and a pagan culture that had a far-reaching effect on

the indigenous people of the region, including nearby Nazarenes such as Jesus. Although most

of Batey’s views have been rejected, his assumption that the Lower Galilee was fully hellenized in

the time of Jesus has been shared by many scholars. As a result, many scholars are looking for

Hellenism as an influence on Jesus’ teaching, rather than looking for its source in Jewish culture.

Although some aspects of Jewish culture were fully at home in Hellenistic culture, it nevertheless

remains the case that Hebrew language and literature, as well as Aramaic and Jewish culture,

dominated the region at this time. And it is there that we must search for the historical Jesus.



Spotlight on Sepphoris

Sepphoris in Ancient History

Sidebar to: How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?

Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 B.C.E.)

According to a rabbinic text (Mishnah, Arakin 9.6), Zippori (the Hebrew name for Sepphoris) was

one of the cities fortified by Joshua during the conquest of Canaan. Excavations have not

revealed a city from this period, however.

539 B.C.E.

Persian ruler Cyrus the Great conquers Babylon and allows the exiled Jews to return from their

Babylonian captivity. Sepphoris may have been the site of a Persian garrison during the fifth and

fourth centuries B.C.E.

200 B.C.E.

Seleucid ruler Antiochus III conquers Jerusalem. Sepphoris becomes the site of a Seleucid fort

constructed by either Antiochus III or his successor, Antiochus IV. The fort bolsters the city’s

reputation as a key stronghold in Galilee.

167 B.C.E.

Under the leadership of Judah Maccabee, the Jews mount a rebellion against the Seleucids,

which culminates in the establishment of the Hasmonean dynasty in Judea. Archaeological

evidence indicates the presence of a Jewish community at Sepphoris during the Hasmonean

period.

63 B.C.E.

The Roman general Pompey conquers Syria-Palestine, but Sepphoris survives as a Hasmonean

stronghold.

37 B.C.E.

The Romans appoint Herod ruler of Judea; he captures Sepphoris from Antigonus, the last

Hasmonean king.

4 B.C.E.

Herod dies. At Sepphoris, Judas son of Ezekias leads a brief insurrection against Rome. The

empire responds by burning Sepphoris and enslaving the rebels.



66–70 C.E.

The First Jewish Revolt against Rome (the Great Revolt). The inhabitants of Sepphoris adopt a

pacifist position and welcome a Roman garrison into their city.

132–135 C.E.

The unsuccessful Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (the Bar-Kokhba Revolt) leads to mass

migrations from southern Palestine into Galilee. The population shift brings an increased

Hellenistic influence to Sepphoris.

138–161 C.E.

The Roman emperor Antoninus Pius reigns. Coins minted during his rule reveal a new Roman

name for Sepphoris—Diocaesarea.

Third and Fourth Centuries C.E.

Greco-Roman influences become more widespread in Sepphoris. But the city is also a key

rabbinic center, with numerous synagogues and Jewish ritual baths. A fourth-century message

from Emperor Constantine, recorded by Epiphanius, indicates that Sepphoris remains a very

Jewish city.



Where Masada’s Defenders Fell

A garbled passage in Josephus has obscured the location of the mass suicide

By Nachman Ben-Yehuda

Prior to Yigael Yadin’s excavations

in the 1960s, most of what we knew about

Herod the Great’s mountain fortress of

Masada came from the first-century C.E.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. The

story is well known: After the Romans

destroyed Jerusalem and burned the

Temple in 70 C.E., the First Jewish Revolt

against Rome was, for all practical

purposes, suppressed. However, three

fortresses in the Judean wilderness

remained outside Roman control: Herodium,

Machaerus and Masada. It took the Roman

military machine a number of years to attend

to these remnants of the revolt. Masada,

occupied by 967 Jewish rebels, was the last

fortress the Romans attacked.Duby Tal/Albatross

They built numerous camps around the site, amassed thousands of troops, besieged it

for three to four years, and, finally, built a ramp and stormed the fortress proper. Yet when the

Romans, led by Silva, breached Masada’s walls, they encountered only silence: 960 of the Jews

had committed suicide rather than surrender to their enemies.

Yadin’s excavations confirmed this account in its broad outlines, but many today question

the details given in Josephus’s account and seemingly corroborated by Yadin’s interpretation of

the finds. Did the Jews really commit mass suicide? Did the Jewish commander Eleazar Ben Yair

actually make the stirring speeches Josephus attributes to him (see “Let Us Leave This World As

Free Men”)? Did Yadin really find the lots the Jewish defenders used to select the ten men who



would slay everyone else and the one among the ten who would slay the other nine and then

himself? Were there really 960 rebels? What happened to the bodies? Did Yadin find some of

them, as he claimed (see Whose Bones?)?

Plan of Masada.

I studied Josephus’s account for many years while preparing a book on the episode and

its use in modern Israel.1

One sentence of it has always puzzled me. It has led me to think more

deeply about what might have happened to the corpses of the Jews. Whether the Jews

committed mass suicide or were killed by the Romans, their bodies, I reasoned, had to have been

disposed of in some way. This realization led me, in turn, to consider precisely where the mass

suicide of the Jews may have occurred. But I am getting ahead of the story.

The sentence from Josephus that has given me so much trouble concerns a palace

Herod built at Masada: “He [Herod] built a palace therein at the western ascent; it was within and

beneath the walls of the citadel, but inclined to its north side.”2

A problem arises here because

there are two palaces at Masada, a western palace and a northern palace.

The western palace is the largest structure on the site. It occupies an area of about

36,000 square feet near the point where the western ascent to Masada—the geological formation

on which the Romans built their siege ramp—meets the top of the mountain.

The northern palace is the most dramatic and elegant structure on the site. With three

levels, it is more a villa than a palace. Its lowest level was supported by huge external walls and

columns chiseled into the rock. It had frescoes and a small bath house. The middle level had a



small circular structure whose purpose is not entirely clear. The top level contained living quarters

and a semicircular veranda that still provides a spectacular view.

To which of these palaces was Josephus referring? For many years, scholars thought

Josephus meant the western palace since it is located near the western ascent on which the

Romans built their ramp. However, this conclusion does not fit the rest of Josephus’s description.

The western palace, as Yadin found it, is not “beneath the walls of the citadel” and is certainly not

“inclined to its [the site’s] north side.”

Baron WolmanIts audacious setting at the very tip of Masada makes the northern palace (lower left) thesite’s most spectacular feature. But was it the location of the mass suicide? The sentencein Josephus on which that question hangs refers to a palace Herod built “at the westernascent … within and beneath the walls of the citadel, but inclined to its north side.” Thenorthern palace fits much of this description. Two of its three levels lie dramaticallybeneath the citadel walls, while its top level lies within the walls. However, the northernpalace is not near the western ascent (right of center), on which the Romans built a siegeramp.

For these reasons, Yadin and others concluded that Josephus must have been referring

to the northern palace in this passage. The northern palace lay “beneath the walls of the citadel”

and was “inclined to its north side.” Moreover, Josephus mentioned “a road dug from the palace,

and leading to the very top of the mountain.” This too seems to indicate the northern palace.

There is a problem, however: No western ascent leads to the northern palace. If Josephus’s

description is accurate, it cannot refer to this palace either. From all this, we can draw only one

conclusion: Josephus’s sentence simply does not make sense as it stands.



Nor does it make sense that Josephus never seems to mention the western palace at all.

Josephus, who is well known for his accurate descriptions, appears to have been quite familiar

with Masada. Are we to believe that he simply failed to make any reference to the largest building

on the site? This would be especially surprising since the Roman breach of Masada’s wall

occurred near this structure.

I believe this sentence from Josephus has been corrupted. Something has been changed

or omitted. The words that give this away are “a palace … at the western ascent.” This can only

be the western palace. Yet the rest of the sentence can only refer to the northern palace. Some

text must have been lost in the middle.

I believe that the text stating “He built a palace therein at the western ascent” was

originally followed by a description of the western palace and, after that, a description of the

northern palace. At some point, the description of the western palace was deleted and the two

unrelated sentences were combined, creating an ambiguous text that cannot be parsed.

The various versions of Josephus that survive in manuscript form provide little help in

reconstructing this sentence. The standard Greek version with commentary uses the word for

“palace,” basileion (literally “place of the king”), in the first part of the sentence, and the word

akra, which might indicate a kind of citadel, in the second part of the sentence.3

This use of two

different words seems to confirm that the two parts of the sentence refer to two different palaces.

The Greek version of Josephus is based on two principal manuscript groups dating from

the 10th to the 12th century. Both textual groups existed as early as the third century. Early

translations from the Greek into Latin (fourth and fifth centuries) and Syriac (sixth century) also

exist. The omission in this sentence, however, occurs in those texts as well. In short, none of the

surviving manuscripts offers a significant alternative reading for this passage.

In 1923 and 1993, Josephus was published in Hebrew translations. Both of these editions

incorrectly translate “ascent” (the Greek anabasis) as “descent.” If Josephus had said that Herod

built himself a palace “in the western descent,” then, with a little imagination, we might take this

as a reference to the northern palace—as if there were a “western descent” leading to it. This is

clearly wrong. Apparently, the translators were attempting to make some sense of this critical

sentence.

Omissions such as the one in this sentence occur accidentally all the time. Sometimes,

however, they are intentional. In this case, someone may have wanted readers (contemporary

and future) to be unaware of something. But of what? What about the western palace would be

worthy of omission? That it was where the Jewish commander Eleazar addressed his people,

where the mass suicide occurred and where the Roman soldiers buried the bodies? That is the

proposition I would like to explore.

When the final male survivor “perceived that they all were slain,” Josephus tells us, “he

set fire to the palace, and with the great force of his hand ran his sword entirely through himself,



and fell down dead near to his own relations.” (According to Josephus, a few children and two old

women hid themselves and lived to tell the tale.) The implication of this passage is that the

collective suicide took place at “the palace.”

Which palace is Josephus referring to? It seems clear that he means the western palace.

The lower and middle levels of the northern palace would not have held 960 people. It also would

have been hard to assemble everyone on one of the palace levels because the path down to

them is difficult to traverse. The western palace, on the other hand, was easily accessible and

could have accommodated everyone; it would have been a natural place for the collective

suicide. Indeed, even Yadin noted that the western palace was probably the central locale for

Masada’s ceremonies and its administration. Also, when Yadin excavated the western palace, he

found it had been terribly burnt, which would be in keeping with Josephus’s account.a

Furthermore, the word Josephus uses in this sentence for palace is basileion, the same word he

used earlier for the palace “at the western ascent,” not akra, the word he used for the palace

“beneath the walls.” His very terminology points to the western palace as the place of the suicide

and fire.

Profile in courage? The northernpalace’s three levels jutdramatically from Masada’snorthern tip. But the very featurethat makes the palace the moststriking structure on Masadaargues against it being the site ofthe defenders suicide: Wherewould 960 people have been ableto fit in it? Josephus describes alarge final assembly at whichMasada’s leader, Eleazar BenYair, made an impassionedspeech that convinced almost allof the defenders to commitsuicide (a few elderly women andsome children chose to hide inMasada’s caves instead). Richard Nowitz

The semicircular veranda of the northern palace’s upper level, the circular structure of itsmiddle level and the lowest terrace are simply too small to have accommodated a group ofthat size. Plus it would have been difficult for them all to climb down to the palace; thepath is narrow and steep. No, writes author Ben-Yehuda, the site of the suicide must beelsewhere on the mountaintop.

When the Roman soldiers, probably in full armor, finally broke open the gateway to

Masada at the top of the ramp, they entered carefully, expecting to meet resistance. Instead they

were greeted only by the sounds, sights and smell of fire. The rebels were dead. The Roman

soldiers “attempted to put the fire out, and quickly cutting … a way through it … came within the



palace, and so met with the multitude of the slain, but could take no pleasure in the fact, though it

were done to their enemies.” In Josephus’s narrative, the Romans do not take long to go through

the fire, debris and rubble of the basileion. This also implies that the bodies were discovered in

the western palace. Heading north and searching the northern palace would have taken longer;

the western palace was near the Romans’ point of entry.

Josephus’s failure to mention the western palace, so central to the entire action, is

mysterious. Could someone have tampered with the text to omit whatever description Josephus

gave of it? And if so, why?

One plausible answer has to do with the missing bodies. Yadin thought that he had found

the skeletons of a few of the slain defenders in a cave on Masada’s southeastern face, but this is

open to serious question (see Whose Bones?). In any event, he found fewer than 30 skeletons.

So what happened to the rest?

The Romans occupied Masada for nearly 40 years after conquering it; they could not

have simply left the dead to rot where they had fallen. They could have thrown the bodies of the

slain over the side of the cliff, but I doubt it. I don’t believe the Romans would have wanted to see

those bodies at the bottom of the cliff, rotting in the sun and being eaten by animals. Not only

would it have been unpleasant and unhealthy, but the Romans apparently had a grudging but

understandable respect for their erstwhile enemies. According to Josephus, “Nor could they [the

Roman soldiers] do other than wonder at the courage of their [the Jewish rebels’] resolution, and

at the immovable contempt of death which so great a number of them had shown, when they

went through with such an action.”4

The Romans could have set fire to the bodies, but burning 960 would have been a major

undertaking requiring materials hardly available in the desert. They could have buried the bodies

in a mass grave, especially if, as indicated above, the Romans had some respect for the dead.

But where would they have dug this grave? At the foot of the Roman ramp? Somewhere on

Masada’s top? The latter seems more logical. It would have got the bodies out of the way quickly

and respectfully. My guess—and it is just a guess—is that the bodies were buried in or close to

the western palace, where the Romans had found them.

In the Byzantine period, between the fifth and seventh centuries, monks lived on Masada

and built a church northeast of the western palace. Monks usually built their churches and

monasteries on sites that had some historical and transcendental significance. Did they come to

Masada to build a church where they knew, or guessed, the death scene of Masada had

occurred—and perhaps where the bodies were buried?



Ehud Netzer/Israel Exploration Society/Masada Excavations

The western palace, with 36,000 square feet, was Masada’s largest structure and probablyserved as the administrative center of the site. It was easily accessible, located near thewestern ascent and could have held 960 people. Further, it sits near the top of the ramp(visible leading up to the palace in the first photo of the article) the Romans would haveused for their final assault, making it likely that the defenders would have massed here.

However, though the western palace meets the practical requirements of the mass suicide,it does not fully match Josephus’s description of the Masada site: It did not lie outside thecitadel’s walls or on the northern side of Masada. How can these difficulties bereconciled?

Author Nachman Ben-Yehuda suggests the problem lies in Josephus’s description, not inthe site; part of the problematic sentence describes the northern palace and part of itdescribes the western palace. Ben-Yehuda argues that a section of Josephus’s originalaccount was omitted relatively soon after it was written either by accident or by peoplewho wanted to obscure the location of the suicide.



Finally, did the early Christians delete the information provided in Josephus’s original

passage because they did not want later generations of Jews (and others) to make the site a

place for Jewish pilgrimage or veneration?

Speculative? Yes. Impossible? No.

I am grateful to Shmuel Gertel for his crucial and significant help in translating original writings

and locating sources.

Questioning Masada

“Let Us Leave This World as Free Men”

Sidebar to: Where Masada’s Defenders Fell

Ben Yair’s Last Speech According to Josephus

When the besieged Jewish defenders of Masada saw that the Romans had completed a

ramp up to their walls and were preparing to attack in the morning, they realized that their long

struggle would soon be over. They knew no one could rescue them; they were the last holdout of

the Jewish resistance that had fought Rome in the First Jewish Revolt (66–70 A.D.). Jerusalem

had fallen in 70 A.D., and the Temple had been destroyed. All other pockets of resistance had

been crushed one by one and the captured rebels tortured and killed, enslaved or sent to Rome

to die as gladiators.

Masada’s defenders assembled for the last time. According to the first-century A.D.

Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, their leader, Eleazar Ben Yair, addressed them with so

moving a speech that 960 of the 967 Masada defenders were convinced to commit suicide and

die as free persons rather than face torment, slaughter, rape and enslavement at the hands of the

Romans. The defenders cast lots, Josephus writes: Ten men would kill the others and then draw

lots again to determine which one would kill the other nine before killing himself. Yigael Yadin,

Masada’s excavator, believed the inscribed lots he had found (photo at center) were the ones

described by Josephus.

Josephus claimed that seven people slipped out of Masada just before its fall, avoiding

both suicide and capture by the Romans. Josephus, who was not an eyewitness, claims that one

of those survivors told him of Ben Yair’s speech. However, some scholars question Josephus’s

account, claiming that Ben Yair never made the speech, that no mass suicide occurred and that

Masada’s excavator, Yigael Yadin, claimed too quickly that the archaeological evidence fit



Josephus’s account. Though archaeological evidence at other sites has been found to verify

Josephus’s accounts in great detail, scholars point out that the most important evidence of all is

missing from Masada—the remains of the 960. Whatever its veracity, Ben Yair’s speech

undoubtedly still has the power to stir emotions nearly 2,000 years later: “My loyal followers, long

ago we resolved to serve neither the Romans nor anyone else but only God, who alone is the

true and righteous Lord of men: now the time has come that bids us prove our determination by

our deeds. At such a time we must not disgrace ourselves: hitherto we have never submitted to

slavery, even when it brought no danger with it. We must not choose slavery now, and with it

penalties that will mean the end of everything if we fall alive into the hands of the Romans. For we

were the first of all to revolt, and shall be the last to break off the struggle. And I think it is God

who has given us this privilege, which we can die nobly and as free men, unlike others who were

unexpectedly defeated. In our case it is evident that daybreak will end our resistance, but we are

free to choose an honorable death with our loved ones. This our enemies cannot prevent,

however earnestly they may pray to neither take us alive; nor can we defeat them in battle …

“Let our wives die unabused, our children without knowledge of slavery: after that, let us

do each other an ungrudging kindness, preserving our freedom as a glorious winding-sheet. But

first let our possessions and the whole fortress go up in flames: it will be a bitter blow to the

Romans, which I know, to find our persons beyond their reach and nothing left for them to loot.

One thing let us spare—our store of food: it will bear witness when we are dead to the fact that

we perished, not through want but because, as we resolved at the beginning, we chose death

rather than slavery …

“If only we had all died before seeing the Sacred City utterly destroyed by enemy hands,

the Holy Sanctuary so impiously uprooted! But since an honorable ambition deluded us into

thinking that perhaps we should succeed in avenging her of her enemies, and now all hope has

fled, abandoning us to our fate, let us at once choose death with honor and do the kindest thing

we can for ourselves, our wives and children, while it is still possible to show ourselves any

kindness. After all, we were born to die, we and those we brought into the world: this even the

luckiest must face. But outrage, slavery, and the sight of our wives led away to shame with our

children—these are not evils to which man is subject by the laws of nature: men undergo them

through their own cowardice if they have a chance to forestall them by death and will not take it.

We are very proud of our courage, so we revolted from Rome: now in the final stages they have

offered to spare our lives and we have turned the offer down. Is anyone too blind to see how

furious they will be if they take us alive? Pity the young whose bodies are strong enough to

survive prolonged torture; pity the not-so-young whose old frames would break under such ill-

usage. A man will see his wife violently carried off; he will hear the voice of his child crying

‘Daddy!’ when his own hands are fettered.



Come! While our hands are free and can hold a sword, let them do a noble service! Let us die

unenslaved by our enemies, and leave this world in company with our wives and children.”

Flavius Josephus, Jewish War 7.8.6–7



A New Reconstruction of Paul’s Prison

Herod’s Antonia fortress

By Ehud Netzer

The Antonia, the palace/fortress lavishly described by the ancient Jewish historian

Josephus at the northwest corner of the Herodian Temple Mount, is not mentioned by name in

the New Testament. For a long time, however, it was thought to be the “praetorium” where Pilate

questioned Jesus and found him innocent.

The praetorium is also mentioned in Mark 15:15–16, where Pilate, to satisfy the crowd,

delivers Jesus to be crucified, and the soldiers lead him away, taking him “inside the palace (that

is, the praetorium).” And in Matthew 27:27, the soldiers take Jesus into the “praetorium,” where

he is mocked and hailed as King of the Jews.

A praetorium was originally the residence of a praetor—a provincial governor. These New

Testament references make it clear that the praetorium they are referring to is part of a palace

that is a royal residence. Herod’s palace was not near the Temple Mount. Scholars are generally

agreed that it lay on the western edge of the city, south of today’s Jaffa Gate. It no doubt stood

just as Herod built it until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. Josephus describes the

layout in his account of the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans. It would be—and was—an

ideal and honorable place to house the supreme Roman authority. A similar phenomenon is

known to us from Caesarea, where Herod’s Promontory Palace later became a praetorium. In

short, the praetorium was most likely located in Herod’s palace—not the Antonia—and there is

thus no New Testament reference to Jesus in connection with the Antonia.

With Paul, however, it is different. When Paul was arrested at the Temple, he was bound

in chains and taken to the “barracks,” which was entered via “steps” (Acts 21:34–35). He was

later incarcerated in the “barracks” (Acts 21:37). A very good case can be made that the

“barracks” referred to was part of the Antonia at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount.

Attacks on the Temple Mount (and Jerusalem) have traditionally come from the north.

Steep valleys lie to the east and west. To the south, the terrain descends more gradually but just

as deeply through the City of David, the earliest settlement of Jerusalem.



Herod’s Jerusalem. Herod’sbuilding projects did more tochange the face of Jerusalemthan those of any other ruler inthe city’s history. In addition toconstructing the Antonia,renovating the Temple andexpanding the Temple Mountplatform, Herod built a grandpalace in the upper city onJerusalem’s western ridge. It islikely that here in the palace, orpraetorium—rather than in theAntonia—Jesus was tried andcondemned by Pilate.

Before the Antonia was constructed at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount, earlier

Jewish rulers (the Hasmoneans) had also erected a citadel here called the Baris. Herod replaced

the Baris with his own palace/fortress, not only to protect against invaders, but to control

whatever was happening on the Temple Mount. Herod named the grand palace/fortress after his

protector and friend Marc Antony. (Naming it for Marc Antony tells us that the Antonia was built

before 31 B.C.E., when Antony was defeated by Octavian at the Battle of Actium.)

Josephus describes the Antonia in some detail: With a tower at each of its four corners,

the Antonia was apparently square or nearly so. Three of the towers were 50 cubits high; the

fourth, on the southeast corner, was 70 cubits high. (Although the precise length of a cubit is a

matter of scholarly debate, it is about 50 cm [18–20 in] ).

Josephus also tells us that “A Roman cohort was permanently quartered there.” This

sounds a lot like the “barracks” referred to in Acts. Moreover, the Antonia was connected by stairs

to the Temple Mount, and Acts tells us that the “barracks” were entered by “steps.” So the

connection of the Antonia with Paul’s incarceration seems quite secure. But what was the Antonia

like?

Unfortunately, practically nothing remains of the structure. What we have are mainly cuts

in the bedrock at the northwest corner of the Temple Mount. While these have raised many

questions, no scholar has ever seriously questioned the existence of this palatial fortress at this

site.



What’s in a Namesake? The very nameof the Antonia gives us importantinformation about its construction.Herod named the fortress after hisRoman friend and protector MarcAntony (left), who was engaged in apower struggle with Octavian (laternamed Augustus). When Octaviandefeated Antony and his loverCleopatra at the naval Battle of Actiumin 31 B.C.E., he took sole control of theRoman Empire. Herod quickly andstrategically switched his allegiance tothe victorious Octavian. The fact thatthe Antonia is so-named indicates thatit was built before 31 B.C.E. It wasapparently his first building project.

The Art Archive/Museo Capitolino Rome/Gianni Dagli Orti

Josephus tells us the Antonia was set on a height: It was built “on a rock fifty cubits high,

and all sides precipitous ... This rock was covered from its base upwards with smooth flagstones,

both for ornament and in order that anyone attempting to ascend or descend it might slip off.”

At the top of the rock was a wall 3 cubits high, behind which was the “majestic” edifice. It

“resembled a palace in its spaciousness and appointments, being divided into apartments of

every description and for every purpose, including cloisters, baths and broad courtyards for the

accommodation of troops; so that from its possession of all conveniences it seemed a town; from

its magnificence, a palace.”

Josephus goes on:

“At the point where it impinged upon the porticoes of the Temple, there were stairs

leading down to both of them, by which the guards descended; for a Roman cohort was

permanently quartered there, and at the festivals took up positions in arms around the porticoes

to watch the people and repress any insurrectionary movement. For if the Temple lay as a

fortress over the city, the Antonia dominated the Temple, and the occupants of that post were the

guards of all three; the upper town had its own fortress—Herod’s palace.”



Cutting through the crowdedstreets of Jerusalem, the ViaDolorosa makes its waywest—down the center of thisphoto looking east—from theTemple Mount (the northernedge of which is visible atupper right) before cuttingback to the southeast. Thispath, walked by Christians tofollow the Stations of theCross and other traditionalsites associated with Jesus’passion and death, begins atthe former site of the Antonia,where it was once believedJesus was tried andcondemned by Pontius Pilate.Although it is unlikely thatJesus’ trial took place here,the first portion of thispilgrimage route overliesanother important ancientfeature: the east-west moatthat marked the northernboundary of the Antonia. TheMount of Olives can be seenin the background.

Duby Tal/Albatross

All in all, according to Josephus the Antonia was “a crowning exhibition of the innate

grandeur of [Herod’s] genius.” The Antonia was apparently Herod’s first building project. He did

not begin the renovation and expansion of the Temple and its enclosure until around 20 B.C.E.

With no archaeological remains, however, we are left with only some rock cuttings to

learn more. The most important is the remains of a moat that separated the Antonia from the hill

to the northeast (today’s Muslim Quarter of the Old City). This moat marks the northern boundary

of the Antonia.

About 20 meters (65 ft) south of the moat that marks the Antonia’s northern boundary, is

a cut 12 meters (40 ft) deep into the bedrock. The cut is 39 meters (128 ft) long and marks the

northern boundary of the Temple Mount as it exists today. One might suppose that this cut marks

the southern boundary of the Antonia, but to my mind this cannot be. At only about 30 meters

(100 ft) south of the moat marking the northern boundary of the Antonia, this leaves too narrow a

strip for the Antonia, especially in light of Josephus’s glowing description.

The Antonia must have extended farther south. I believe it extended onto the area of the

present Temple Mount. I am not the first to make this suggestion. In the late 1970s it was

proposed by the Israeli scholar E.W. Cohn. His suggestion was not very favorably received at the

time, however; perhaps my demonstration here will give it wider acceptance.



Reconstruction by Ehud Netzer

When Herod undertook the ambitioustask of rebuilding the Temple andexpanding the Hasmonean TempleMount, the Antonia already stood atthe northwest corner of the intendedsite. So Herod constructed the newenclosure and simply incorporatedthe Antonia into the larger TempleMount by building around it andadding stairways to connect theAntonia to the two stoas that linedthe northern and western walls of theTemple Mount. Josephus’sdescription supports this layout,saying that, “At the point where it[the Antonia] impinged upon theporticoes of the Temple, there werestairs leading down to both of them,by which the guards descended.”Only if the Antonia extended onto theTemple Mount platform would it makesense to speak of “impinged”porticoes and two connectingstairways. The stairs at far left in thedrawing above are a third staircasethat led from the Antonia down intothe valley and predate the TempleMount expansion.

Reconstruction by Ehud Netzer

An important clue lies in a bulge in the height of the bedrock at the northwest corner of

the Temple Mount. Herod leveled the Temple Mount to a height of 738 meters (about 2,420 ft)

above sea level (except for the platform in the center for the Temple). But at the northwestern

corner of the Temple Mount, it is 740 meters above sea level, an increase of more than 6 feet.

Why was this area not leveled to 738 meters? Perhaps because there was already a building

there: the Antonia.



A relic of the baris. This ancient waterchannel runs north-south just west of theTemple Mount before turning sharply tothe east and running into the westernwall. It predates the construction of theHerodian Temple Mount and probablyserved the Baris, the Hasmonean fortressthat Herod rebuilt into the Antonia. Sincethis location had the strategic advantageof protecting against invaders from thenorth and overseeing the Temple, Herodprobably incorporated parts of the Baris,including its water systems, into the newAntonia.

Dan Bahat

When Herod began his rule, the Temple Mount was a much smaller platform. As is well

known, he extended it on the north, south and west. (He could not extend it on the east because

there the terrain drops steeply into the Kidron Valley.) And we have clear evidence of the

extensions.

As I said, prior to the construction of the Antonia, the Hasmonean rulers of Judea had

built a fortress known as the Baris (Bira in Hebrew, “fortifications”) on the same site that was to be

later occupied by the Antonia. It was the logical place for a fortress to protect the city from an

enemy force approaching from the north (the traditional route) and to control the crowds on the

Temple Mount to the south. (Indeed, I believe there were even earlier fortifications here built by

the Seleucid and Ptolemaic authorities, but that is another subject for another time.)

I don’t believe Herod would have completely dismantled the Baris before constructing the

Antonia. I believe he incorporated elements of the Baris into his construction, especially its water

cisterns and cellars.

Another important clue to the puzzle of the location of the Antonia consists of the remains

of an ancient north-south water channel, cut deeply into the bedrock west of the Temple Mount.

About 60 meters (195 ft) south of the northwest corner of the Temple Mount, the channel turns

sharply to the east. But it is blocked by the western wall of the Temple Mount. The channel must

have therefore been dug before Herod built his extended western wall of the Temple Mount. This

water channel apparently served the Baris of the Hasmonean era when the Temple Mount was

smaller and the Baris was north of the Temple Mount. With Herod’s enlargement of the Temple

Mount, the site of the (former) Baris (and now the Antonia) was partially on the expanded Temple

Mount.



The final clue is the western wall of the Temple Mount itself. About 65 meters (213 ft)

south of its northwest corner, the western wall takes a 3-meter (10-foot) jog to the east; that is, it

goes east by a 90-degree turn and then proceeds south again. The only explanation for why the

western wall “sticks out” for the first 65 meters is because the Antonia was there and extended

out that far. Only where it began south of the Antonia could Herod’s extended western wall come

in to where he wanted it.

Dan BahatAnother small clue? Approximately 215 feet south of the northwest corner of the TempleMount, the western wall takes a 90-degree turn to the east for about 10 feet beforecontinuing south again. Netzer explains that this small “jog,” which is visible inside theKotel Tunnels along the western wall (at left center in the photo), represents the southwestcorner of the Antonia, which extended even farther west than Herod’s later western wallexpansion (right).

In short, in the early years of his rule, Herod reconstructed the Baris, turning it into the

Antonia that Josephus describes. Later, Herod reconstructed the modest Second Temple, which

the Jews returning from the Babylonian exile had built in the sixth century B.C.E., and enlarged

the Temple Mount. However, on the northern side, he was limited by the fact that the Antonia

extended into the new portion of the Temple Mount.



Zev Radovan/www.biblelandpictures.comHerodian-style architecture. Josephus tells us that the Antonia had a tower at each of itsfour corners—three of these were 50 cubits high, but the southeastern tower (the one onthe Temple Mount itself) was 70 cubits high. Using the palace/fortress Herod built atHerodium as an example, it is easier to visualize what Josephus was talking about.Although Herodium is circular (compared to the square Antonia), the layout of the towersis similar. Here, four towers mark the perimeter of the structure. The north, west and southtowers were semicircular and measure about 52 feet in diameter. They probably containedcellars and dormitories and stood five or six stories high. The eastern tower, however, is afull circle 55 feet in diameter. Its solid base could have supported nine stories, includingguest apartments that took advantage of the breeze and the stunning view to the DeadSea.

This solution to the location of the Antonia is confirmed by Josephus’s description. If the

Antonia had been completely outside the Temple Mount, he would simply have written that it lay

north (or northwest) of the Temple Mount. Instead, he wrote: “The tower of Antonia lay at the

angle where two porticoes, the western and the northern, of the first court of the Temple met.”

That the Antonia was situated at the “angle of the two porticoes” rather than north or

northwest of the Temple Mount is a powerful indication that the Antonia actually extended onto

the Temple Mount. This observation is reinforced by Josephus’s statement that the Antonia

“impinged upon the porticoes of the Temple.”

He then goes on to say that “at the point where it [the Antonia] impinged on the porticoes

of the Temple, there were stairs leading down to both of them.” That there were stairs leading

down from the Antonia to the porticoes (or colonnades) of the Temple Mount certainly suggests

that the Antonia encroached on the Temple Mount. Otherwise, why would there be separate

stairways to each of the porticoes (on the north and west) that abutted the Antonia?



As already mentioned above, Josephus tells us that “the general appearance of the

whole [of the Antonia] was that of a tower with other towers at each of the four corners; three of

these turrets were fifty cubits high, while that at the southeast angle rose to seventy cubits, and

so commanded a view of the whole area of the Temple.” We can get some idea of the visual

effect of the Antonia from another Herodian structure that, unlike the Antonia, in large part

survives, namely Herodium near Bethlehem. The chief difference is that the Antonia was square

(or a rectangle very close to square) and Herodium is round. Herodium also served a somewhat

different purpose from the Antonia; it was one of Herod’s summer palaces and a fortress, and

Herod was also buried there. We have recently discovered Herod’s burial site at Herodium, but

that is another story which I will write about in a future issue of BAR. Both Herodium and the

Antonia enclosed a central structure with four towers, one of which was higher than the others. As

Josephus says of the Antonia, so it may be said of Herodium: “The general appearance of the

whole was that of a tower with other towers at each of the four corners.”

Having steeped myself in the details of Herodian architecture for almost half a century, I

sometimes think I am inside Herod’s mind or head, at least architecturally. On this basis, I think I

can reconstruct the sequence of events prior to the construction of the Antonia. The first question

Herod faced was whether to destroy the older Hasmonean Baris or to integrate it within a new

fortress/palace.

Having made the latter decision, he then had to decide on the exact location of the new

building. At this stage of his life, he probably already envisioned the future enlargement of the

Temple Mount in general terms. The new Antonia was built on the same grid as the adjacent

Temple Mount. When Herod later undertook to enlarge the Temple Mount on three sides (all but

the east), some adjustments no doubt had to be made to the Antonia as a result of Herod’s

northern extension of the Temple Mount. It was probably at this point that the two stairways were

constructed from the Antonia to the new porticoes of the Herodian Temple Mount.

There remains one loose end. As I noted earlier, south of the northern boundary of the

Antonia (marked by the moat) is a vertical cut in the bedrock 12 meters deep and 39 meters long.

This is too far north to be the southern boundary of the Antonia. But who made this cut, and

when? It is an elegant and precise cut into the bedrock that runs perfectly along the northern

(Herodian) end of the Temple Mount. Of all the various candidates for this cut, the only one that

seems plausible is that it was cut by Umayyad caliph Mu’awiyah, who ruled between 661 and 680

C.E. Mu’awiyah was the first caliph after the Arab conquest to initiate and implement

reconstruction projects on the Temple Mount. It is generally recognized that the caliph rebuilt the

existing east, west and south walls of the Temple Mount. He most probably also cut 12 meters

deep and 39 meters long into the rock on the north side of this huge compound. This cut would

not only provide for the reconstruction of the walls but also create a more nearly rectangular

shape to the Temple Mount, which I don’t believe existed in Herod’s day.



Notes

The Fury of Babylona. In Genesis 22:17, God assures Abraham that his descendants will be able to “seize the gates of their enemies.” Theimplication is that once the gates were taken, the battle was over; the city might as well surrender and avoid furtherdestruction. In fact, “gates” is often a metonym for “cities” in Biblical Hebrew (see Judges 5:11).b. The prodigious efforts of Seymour Gitin to link the prosperity of Ekron to the Assyrian Empire have produced ananachronistic conclusion. The economic “take off” did not occur during the late eighth or early seventh centuries B.C.E.,but later in the second half of the seventh century B.C.E. What propelled the olive oil industry at Ekron into theinternational sphere was not a dying Assyria but a rising Egypt, ever the greatest consumer of Levantine olive oil. Theexpansion of Ekron and the development of its oil industry occurred after Assyrian interest and power in the West hadbegun to wane in the late 640s.c. Gabriel Barkay extends the use of the Jerusalem Ketef Hinnom tomb into this gap; but that does not mean the city wasrebuilt or widely inhabited.d. It was not from want of trying, however. In 601/600 B.C.E. Nebuchadrezzar over-extended his army by invading Egypt;he was defeated by Necho II, who then reconquered Gaza.1. Avraham Malamat, “The Kingdom of Judah Between Egypt and Babylon,” Studia Theologica 44 (1990), pp. 65–77.2. See Malamat, “The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom,” Vetus Testamentum Supplement 28(1975), pp. 123–125.3. British Museum 21946, 18–20. In the first edition of Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) (London: BritishMuseum, 1956), pp. 68, 85, D.J. Wiseman restored Ashkelon (isû?-qi?-[erasure]-il-lunu) as the name of the captured city.Later W.F. Albright, accompanied by Wiseman and A. Sachs, reexamined the tablet in the British Museum and concludedthat Wiseman’s reading was correct. More recently, A.K. Grayson, in reviewing P. Garelli and V. Nikiprowetzky’s LeProche-Orient Asiatique: Les Empires Mésopotamiens in Archiv für Orientforschung 27 (1980), declared the reading ofthe name Ashkelon to be “very uncertain.” He apparently convinced Wiseman that the earlier reading was “uncertain”(Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Schweich Lectures of the British Academy, 1983 [Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1991], p. 23, n. 158). In 1992, my colleague Peter Machinist asked I. Finkel, curator of cuneiform in the BritishMuseum’s department of Western Asiatic Antiquities, to check the tablet once again for the name of the captured city. In aletter dated November 11, 1992, Finkel confirmed that the city referred to is indeed Ashkelon. For details, see LawrenceStager, “Ashkelon and the Archaeology of Destruction: Kislev 604 B.C.E.,” in “A Heap of Broken Images”: Essays inBiblical Archaeology (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, forthcoming).4. Benjamin Mazar, “The Philistines and the Rise of Israel and Tyre,” in The Early Biblical Period, ed. S. Ah\ituv and B.Levine (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1986 [1964]), pp. 63–82, esp. 65–68.5. The Egyptologist Dr. Michael Baud examined the situlae and suggested this interpretation of Min’s gesture, also basedon statuary of the deity.6. J.A. Wilson, “The Repulsing of the Dragon and the Creation,” in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the OldTestament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1969), p. 6.7. J.H. Iliffe, “A Hoard of Bronzes from Ashkelon, c. Fourth Century B.C.,” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities inPalestine 5 (1936), pp. 61–68.8. See William F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 115.9. See P. Mayerson, “The Gaza ‘Wine’ Jar (Gazition) and the ‘Lost’ Ashkelon Jar (Askalônion),” Israel Exploration Journal42 (1992), pp. 76–80; and “The Use of Ascalon Wine in the Medical Writers of the Fourth to the Seventh Centuries,” IsraelExploration Journal 43 (1993), pp. 169–173.10. See J.D. Eisenstein, “Wine,” in The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1904), vol. 12, pp. 532–535;Lawrence E. Stager, “The Impact of the Sea Peoples in Canaan (1185–1050 B.C.E.),” in The Archaeology of Society inthe Holy Land, ed. Thomas E. Levy (New York: Facts on File, 1995), pp. 332–348.11. Seymour Gitin, “Incense Altars from Ekron, Israel and Judah: Context and Typology,” Eretz-Israel 23 (1989), pp. 52*–67*; and Gitin, “Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.: The Impact of Economic Innovation and Foreign CulturalInfluences on a Neo-Assyrian Vassal City-State,” in Recent Excavations in Israel: A View to the West, ed. Gitin,Archaeological Institute of America, Colloquia and Conference Papers 1 (Boston: 1995).12. F. Brown, S.R. Driver and C.A. Briggs, A Hebrew-English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), p. 1016.According to L. Oppenheim, date wine was added to the list of alcoholic beverages in Mesopotamia no earlier than theNeo-Babylonian period (Ancient Mesopotamia: A Portrait of a Dead Civilization [Chicago: Univ. of Chicago, 1964], p. 315).13. See Gitin, “Tel Miqne-Ekron in the 7th Century B.C.E.,” pp. 69, 77, n. 36 for further bibliography.14. See I. Eph’al, “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion,”Orientalia 47 (1978), pp. 74–90.15. See E. F. Weidner, “Jojachin König von Juda, in babylonischen Keilschrifttexten,” in Mélanges Syriens offert àMonsieur René Dussaud, vol. 2 (Paris: Guethner, 1939).16. Eph’al, “The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th–5th Centuries B.C.”

Vegas on the Meda. “Should the Term ‘Biblical Archaeology’ Be Abandoned?” BAR May/June 1981.1. Kenneth G. Holum and Avner Raban, “Caesarea,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the HolyLand (Israel Exploration Society, 1993).2. The fortress extended west as far as the seashore. The Italian excavators concluded that the conversion to a fortressoccurred in the sixth century under the Emperor Justinian. In one of our rescue excavations, however, we found thefortress wall had incorporated earlier walls whose foundation-trenches runs over fill that led into a drain channel of a



Byzantine latrine. The fill included many pottery fragments from the sixth-seventh century. Therefore these walls must bedated later than suggested by the Italian excavators. Since Islamic records mention the fortification of Caesarea after the640 C.E. Arab conquest, we suggest that the fortress was the seat of the Arab/Islamic garrison. The architecture of thefortress fortification—a solid wall with semi-circular towers—is appropriate for early Islamic fortifications rather thanPersian or Byzantine fortifications.3. See P. Kyle McCarter, Ancient Inscriptions (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1996), pp. 133–134.4. J.H. Humphrey, Roman Circuses, Arenas for Chariot Racing (London, 1986).

How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?a. The Seleucids were a dynasty of Hellenistic kings who ruled in Syria after the death of Alexander the Great.b. The name Hasmonean refers to an ancestor of Judah Maccabee; it later became a family title for the Maccabees.c. See Yitzhak Magen, “Ancient Israel’s Stone Age: Purity in Second Temple Times,” BAR 24:05.d. See Richard A. Batey, “Sepphoris—An Urban Portrait of Jesus,” BAR 18:03.1. Richard A. Batey, Jesus and the Forgotten City (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991), p. 14.2. Howard Clark Kee, “Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels,” in The Galilee inLate Antiquity, ed. Lee Levine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1992), p. 15.3. Mishnah, Arakin 9.6.4. Carol L. Meyers, “Sepphoris and Lower Galilee: Earliest Times Through the Persian Period,” in Sepphoris in Galilee:Crosscurrents of Culture, ed. Rebecca Martin Nagy et al. (Raleigh: North Carolina Museum of Art, 1996), pp. 15–19.5. Michal Dayagi-Mendels, “Rhyton,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, p. 163.6. Matthew Stolper, “Vase Fragment,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, pp. 166–167.7. Joseph Naveh, “Jar Fragment with Inscription in Hebrew,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, p. 170.8. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.337–338.9. Josephus, The Jewish War 1.170; Antiquities 14.91.10. Josephus, Antiquities 14.414–415.11. Josephus, Antiquities 17.271; War 2.56.12. Josephus, Antiquities 17.289; War 2.68–69.13. Stuart S. Miller, “Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris: The Historical Evidence,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, p. 22.14. Josephus, War 2.252.15. Josephus, Life 38.16. Josephus, War 2.574.17. Josephus, War 2.51118. Josephus, War 2.511; Life 394.19. Josephus, War 3.31; Life 411.20. Josephus, War 3.32.21. Miller, “Hellenistic and Roman Sepphoris,” pp. 24–25; Tosefta, Yoma 1.4; Tosefta, Sotah 13.7; some manuscripts ofMishnah, Yoma 6.3.22. William Grantham, “A Zooarchaeological Model for the Study of Ethnic Complexity at Sepphoris” (Ph.D. diss.,Northwestern Univ., 1996).23. Niddah 9.3.24. On second-century developments, see the essays in Sepphoris in Galilee, several of which address this topic. Fordetailed discussion of a monumental road and a reference to the agora, see C. Thomas McCollough and Douglas R.Edwards, “Transformation of Space: The Roman Road at Sepphoris,” in Archaeology and the Galilee, ed. Edwards andMcCollough (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997), pp. 135–142.25. Yaakov Meshorer, “Coins and Lead Weight,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, pp. 195–201; Eric C. Lapp, “Lamps,” inSepphoris in Galilee, pp. 220–222, lamps 113, 114, 118.26. See Eric M. Meyers, et al., Sepphoris in Galilee, pp. 111–116.27. S.H. Cormack, “Figurine of Pan(?) or a Satyr” and “Figurine of Promethus,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, pp. 171–172;Dennis E. Groh, “Figurine of the Head and Forelegs of a Bull,” in Sepphoris in Galilee, p. 173.28. Lapp, “Lamps,” pp. 220–222, lamps 116 and 117.29. Epiphanius, Panarion 30.11.9–10; quoted in Isaiah Gafni, “Daily Life in Galilee and Sepphoris,” in Sepphoris inGalilee, pp. 51–57.

Where Masada’s Defenders Fella. See Ehud Netzer, “The Last Days and Hours of Masada,” BAR 17:06.1. Nachman Ben-Yehuda, The Masada Myth (Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1995).2. Josephus, The Jewish Wars 7.8.3.3. Benedikt Niese was the German scholar who edited the works of Flavius Josephus in the Teubner series, Flavii Iosephiopera recognovit Benedictus Niese, 7 vols. (Berlin: Weidmannos, 1888–1895). It is considered the authoritative scientificedition of the Greek text of Josephus.4. Josephus, The Jewish Wars 7.9.2.

Documents

How Jewish Was Sepphoris in Jesus’ Time?